The examples above, and many others, this is a valid criticism.
But the closing advice - if you can't find the hypocrisy, just ignore the argument - is awful. Do you mean to say that is a few disingenuous hypocrites use an argument, then anyone who uses said argument is a disingenuous hypocrite? Certainly anyone can see the logical fallacy there as well.
Given the amount of subsidies/preferential treatment these companies are receiving, it might be better to simply apply their argument to their behaviour, i.e. remove the government interference that they want.
The problem with this comment about politicians blaming each other is David stockman is not a politician. He is an economist who was one of the architects of Reaganomics, and who has the valid perspective to be able to criticize Republican policies. Stockman knows what he is talking about, and his position is that current GOP economic policies are all wrong!
It doesn't solely come down to who has the most money to spend. It comes down to people's perception of candidates. While a good, healthy democracy would have those perceptions be informed by public information about voting records and other relevant information, it really comes down to the most effective ad campaigns. So, to sum up: it doesn't matter the size of your war chest, but how you use it.
Great article. However, one thing: don't use stock photos that still clearly have a stock photo image mark over it. It's sort of scummy. (Seriously though, it's minor. Great article but once I see that picture and the water mark I can't see anything else)
The problem with this comment about politicians blaming each other is David stockman is not a politician. He is an economist who was one of the architects of Reaganomics, and who has the valid perspective to be able to criticize Republican policies. Stockman knows what he is talking about, and his position is that current GOP economic policies are all wrong!
Pages